You're missing the point. Yes, the belief in a God is based in faith, but science has no empirical evidence of the creation of the Universe. What? A Big Bang? Yes, the Scientific Method is proven to work, based on empirical evidence, but to say it is right all the time and anytime in history shows a lack of knowledge of the History of Science. Science has faith, too. Faith that the current empirical evidence using the current tools of the day is enough to claim a "Law." Do you know what the word Paradigm means in Science. It essentially means Science reinvented itself to new found truths/laws. So, we have a discipline that is continuously redefines itself and is using a very sound method of proof, but, yet it is proving predecessors were wrong. Several key proponents of this method were Catholics scholars. Don't tell me Science and Theology can't coexist. And don't tell me Science is always right, because many Scientists live to prove previous masters of theories/laws wrong. Theologists don't do that.
You could certainly try if you wanted to. If you could get enough people to agree that it was a valid and worthwhile academic discipline then they could end up being part of a curriculum one day. As to my previous question, why add universe origin theories to the curriculum in the first place? Is there a shortage of more solid science to be teaching instead? What would teaching the current popular universe origin theory add to an education at that level?
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/a5dSyT50Cs8" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe> 1:50
You D&D guys are so weak at following arguments, sometimes. I come in here and you pigeonhole me into your little places that make sense to you. Where did I say I advocate teaching creationism. I was talking about Theology in HSs, like State Universities have. Not to say I'd spend education money that way. I believe our money should be spent on teachers...but that's another discussion.
Science redefines itself with the advancement in the methods of observation, experimentation.... So, logically, Scientists strive to surpass their predecessors, because they strive to re-examine, and question in the eternal search for deeper knowledge of the universe, of existence... Theologians may not do this, but they do adapt, as all religions have through the passing of time, because their sources are of assumed absolute truths based on faith, where their "evidence for a god", as Neil deGrasse Tyson eloquently put it... is but an "ever receding pocket of ignorance"... As science progresses, society progresses and religions adjust to be more contemporary...
Oh, I wasn't directing that post at you... Your post was simply the spark for a distant, yet relevant memory in my reply... The concluding portion of it were just my resulting thoughts about it...
That's the D&D for you. It's both sides of the coin: bigtexxx, CometsWin, and LosPollosHermanos are the main culprits.
What you, and Neil DeGrasse Tyson fail to understand is that we could figure out absolutely the answers "how" something happened and it wouldn't preclude the possibility of a "creator" or "god". Again, the "why" answers are outside the scope of science just as the "how" answers are outside the scope for religion. Neither can disprove or prove the other, which is why they aren't incomparable. You could describe exactly all of the mechanics behind a car running into a wall, you could talk about how the accelerator was pushed all the way down and talk about every step of internal combustion, but it wouldn't tell you the reason the driver put his foot down in the first place.
I don't think this really conflicts with anything Tyson said in that interview. Perhaps you're reacting to the quote without watching the full clip.
It fundamentally does though, he's trying to say that "god" is basically just the currently unexplained natural phenomena. The idea behind the "ever receding pocket of ignorance" is that people are claiming that "god" is the reason for things we'll eventually figure out and then the answer will change. What I'm saying is that even if you knew "how" everything happened, it wouldn't preclude the possibility of a creator or deity. If I threw a rock and hit you in the arm with it, you could know all about the velocity the rock traveled, the force I had to exert to cause that, the muscles involved in my throwing the rock, but by studying the "how" you'd never explain the why. In fact, you might even conclude that there was no "why" if all you were going on was what was physically observable.
lol.... "tide goes in, tide goes out, YOU can't explain that." Bill O'Reilly was making the point that 'you can't explain why the tides go in, tides go out, so this is evidence of god.' THATS why Neil DeGrasse Tyson said that. If you're argument is that "Oh, you can't explain it, so god must've done it" (Which is O'Reillys), well appropriately, Tyson makes the point that if that is how you want to play the game, then as we learn more, understand more about the universe, then religion is an ever receeding pocket of scientific ignorance. Degrasse frames his response as a rebuttle to how O'Reilly deems 'evidence' of a greater being or whatever. This isn't rocket science
Got it. Sorry. I do that too in the GARM, too. I'll quote someone as lead to say something else, then say to myself later "****, I didn't mean my whole response to be about your quote." cheers
The belief in something isn't justified by virtue of not being able to disprove it. It's a silly proposition.
This is a different point. He was commenting on the validity of the argument that not knowing how everything happened means there is is a creator/deity.
Well, but you know the saying: "Absense of evidence is evidence of existence." Or at least I think that's how it goes.
That's not at all what he said. He said religious folk often take that position and he goes on to point out the flaw of that position.
